Photography Lense Question

[aquamarine]

So I have a few lenses already and want to do something a little more sports-oriented and/or possibly get a little more work going on as far as amateur work goes in the extra room in my home.

What I'm using right now is a Pentax *ist DL. These are the lenses that I'm currently using
Pentax brand kit lense (15-55 3.5-5.6)
Pentax brand 10-17 Fish-eye (3.5-4.5)
Sigma brand 70-300 (4-5.6)

As for flash, I recently picked up a Pentax brand AF-360FGZ.

Now I see some VERY amazing photos in the photo thread like these...


and


So what with the focusing and such, would a lower aperture lens allow for this effect?

Anyhow, I'm wondering if I should keep my new tripod and tripod head (together worth $280 after tax) or if I should pick up one of two lenses I had my eye on: the Pentax smc P-DA 40mm F/2.8 Limited for $299 or the Pentax smc P-DA 50-200mm F/4-5.6 ED for indoor sporting.

What do y'all think?

[DJ Lazy]

The 50-200 f/4-5.6 will probably be a tad on the slow side for indoor sporting.

As for the 40mm f/2.8, that would give you the desired DOF like in the pics you posted.

I really don't know enough about Pentax's lineup though so I can't really give you any other recommendations. Sigma might supply lenses for Pentax SLR's, but I am just guessing right now.

[aquamarine]

What would you suggest for indoor sporting photography? Or rather, what lense would you suggest if this were a Nikon?

[muse017]

Wait until PK mount Tamron 70-200 F2.8 is available.
Currently
PK mount FA*80-200 is discountinued and overpriced.
FA*200 is also discountinued.
FA 77ltd is available at the moment but not really suitable for Indoor sport(Very slow focusing)

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by aquamarine
What would you suggest for indoor sporting photography? Or rather, what lense would you suggest if this were a Nikon?

For indoor sports with relatively poor lighting, a 70-200 f/2.8 with the camera at ISO 1600 is usually the best way to freeze action. Longer-distance sports like indoor soccer needs a proportionally longer lens.

[Ferio_vti]

I've got the DA 40mm 2.8. Great little lens. Excellent for landscape and still lifes. Weighs like nothing.

I hardly use mine since I have a 50mm 1.7. PM me, if you're interested in buying one.

[Davetronz]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


For indoor sports with relatively poor lighting, a 70-200 f/2.8 with the camera at ISO 1600 is usually the best way to freeze action. Longer-distance sports like indoor soccer needs a proportionally longer lens.

Definitely a good lens for sports, but I definitely agree that it wont be the best choice for long-distance shots.

[aquamarine]

Well I took the advice and brought back the new tripod and head then picked up a Pentax 50mm 1.2 FA and so far its doing good but it was very inexpensive at 199. So I'm happy with that!

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by aquamarine
Well I took the advice and brought back the new tripod and head then picked up a Pentax 50mm 1.2 FA and so far its doing good but it was very inexpensive at 199. So I'm happy with that!

An f/1.2 50mm for $199? That's a bargain!

[aquamarine]

I was just told that on MSN. So far it's worked quite well for me, however I don't think it is the digital version, that could be why it was so inexpensive, however it's doing a good job so far!

[Ferio_vti]

A Pentax F/1.2?? You sure it's not an M lens and not an autofocus?? They have a F1.4 FA but not a F1.2 that I know of.

[aquamarine]

Originally posted by Ferio_vti
A Pentax F/1.2?? You sure it's not an M lens and not an autofocus?? They have a F1.4 FA but not a F1.2 that I know of.

Well the box says the following...

PENTAX
FA 50mm F1.4 with a bar code of 027075030534


So I bought that lens and voila, I got to play around with it a little while finding out that all three of my classes today were cancelled (what the hell?)


In the shop






And back in the car





"Can I take your picture?"
"Uhh.. n--" *CLICK*


My good buddy Moto, who might I add is the Western Canadian champion for Kendo


Moments later, Moto took my camera after a can of Pepsi exploded all over my hand.


Just playing around with my buddy Go



And back in the agriculture building.



Just messing around.


Thanks again for for all the advice folks!

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Oh, it's f/1.4, not 1.2. That makes more sense.

[aquamarine]

What is the difference? (Pardon my stupidity)

[BerserkerCatSplat]

The F-number represents the maximum aperture size of a lens - the smaller the number, the more light the lens lets in. For instance, a lens with max aperture of f/1.4 can let in 16 times as much light as a lens with f/5.6 max aperture.

f/1.4 prime lenses are considered a "fast" prime and are reasonably common, while the even faster f/1.2 prime lenses are not very common and quite expensive. For instance, a new Canon 50mm f/1.4 is $365, while the Canon 50mm f/1.2 is $1,500.

[aquamarine]

So I did in fact get a HELL of a deal?

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by aquamarine
So I did in fact get a HELL of a deal?

No, not really. The Pentax 50mm f/1.4 is around $300 new, so $200 used is reasonable. Your lens is f/1.4, not 1.2. If someone told you it was f/1.2 they were wrong, because Pentax doesn't make any f/1.2 lenses.

[aquamarine]

OK, well this one is new in box from the camera store... $100 less than typical retail.. I'm happy with that. Thanks man!

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Hey, good on ya, that's a solid discount. Have fun!

[Ferio_vti]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


No, not really. The Pentax 50mm f/1.4 is around $300 new, so $200 used is reasonable. Your lens is f/1.4, not 1.2. If someone told you it was f/1.2 they were wrong, because Pentax doesn't make any f/1.2 lenses.

Well Pentax does have a F/1.2 50mm, but it's an A series manual lens.

Originally posted by aquamarine
OK, well this one is new in box from the camera store... $100 less than typical retail.. I'm happy with that. Thanks man!

That's a great deal new. Where did you buy it??